Connect with us

News

California Environmental Quality Act delays new home build in San Diego even without an environmental reason

Published

on

I grew up in California, and I’m the last member of my family to live here. One of my sisters and her family moved to Oregon. For her family, it wasn’t an economic issue as much as a quality of life issue. In a recent ranking of states, California ranked the worst state for quality of life.

My parents recently bought a home in Las Vegas, and my eldest sister already lives out there. In the past two years, my family has moved out of California because of taxes, cost of living, quality of life, traffic, and a whole host of other issues.

California’s middle-class is leaving because California isn’t the “Golden State” it once was.

One major issue we are facing in California is a housing crisis, and it isn’t due to lack of developers wanting to build more housing. One main reason is overbearing government regulations.

The Building Industry Association recently commissioned a study that found that up to 40 percent of the cost of a new home is attributable to the 45 regulatory agencies that govern home building in California.

As a candidate for California State Controller, I will not have any legislative ability to address this issue, but I plan to introduce Trickle-up-Taxation to voters with a ballot initiative in 2020. Trickle-up-Taxation will indirectly help to solve our housing crisis because with Trickle-up-Taxation, regulatory reform and realigning of regulatory agencies will be necessary, and those reforms will not only help with the housing crisis but a myriad of other failed state governmental policies and structures.

Trickle-up-Taxation isn’t just about bringing much-needed tax dollars into your community to address the needs of your community. Trickle-up-Taxation will give greater flexibility to your local elected officials to streamline new development and cut down costs.

A perfect example of overbearing government regulation is the halting of a dilapidated California Theatre building in downtown San Diego. A theatre that has been closed since 1990 has fallen into disrepair and was scheduled for demolition for a new 40-story residential tower.

The new construction has been halted because the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a city’s environmental report includes several alternatives for the site including at least one preservation alternative.

Since the city’s report did include several alternatives, it did not consider at least one preservation alternative. Thus the court ruled that a new report had to be issued and at least one preservation alternative must be considered.

My question is, why should one preservation alternative even be considered? The building is from 1927, in disrepair, and its contaminated with lead and asbestos. Cleaning up asbestos and lead is very expensive, and no developer in their right mind would spend the millions necessary to remove that and preserve a building that will not bring in a reasonable rate of return or even a profit.

CEQA and the State of California should have no say in what happens to this building. We already have codes on how to properly clean up and dispose of asbestos and lead, and those codes are needed but spending thousands of dollars to consider preserving a building the owner and the city do not want, is utter nonsense.

Does regulatory reform that Trickle-up-Taxation ensure your city will do the right thing?

No, it doesn’t. San Francisco has proven that its local elected officials can delay development for over five years and require the owner to pay over a million dollars and doing study after study and still delaying the new housing development with nonsense that a building that was built in 1924 and was gutted when it was turned into a laundromat may have, but weren’t not sure, have some historical significance because neighborhood groups used the land once upon a time.

Government regulations are necessary for the protection of residents and the environment. I’m not arguing government doesn’t play a role, what I am arguing is that in the San Diego case, CEQA and the State of California have overstepped their bounds and are medlying in what should be a local issue, not a state issue. If San Francisco wants to make it difficult for their developers then so be it, they have that right.

My opinion is CEQA, and the State of California is delaying housing that is desperately needed and due to their government overreach, are adding millions of dollars of cost to new home build projects and thus will result in more expensive homes and years of delays.

Therefore, fewer people will be able to afford decent housing, and if they can’t find housing they will do what my family and many other Californians are doing; they are leaving the state for greener pasture elsewhere.


Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at cacontroller.com, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

In threat to Pelosi, 16 Dems say they’ll back new leadership

Published

on

In threat to Pelosi 16 Dems say theyll back new leadership

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sixteen Democrats who’ve opposed Nancy Pelosi’s quest to become speaker released a letter Monday saying they will vote for “new leadership” when the House picks its leaders in January, underscoring a significant threat to her effort to lead her party’s House majority in the next Congress.

The letter’s release suggests that rather than spending the next six weeks focusing on a fresh agenda to present to Americans, House Democrats could be consumed with a bitter and attention-grabbing internal leadership fight.

The battle pits the party’s largely liberal and diverse membership backing Pelosi, D-Calif., against a small group of mostly moderate male lawmakers. Of the 16 Democrats who signed the letter — which stops short of explicitly saying they will vote for an opposing candidate for speaker — all but two are men: Reps. Kathleen Rice of New York and California’s Linda Sanchez.

“We promised to change the status quo, and we intend to deliver on that promise,” the authors wrote, referring to campaign pledges by a number of Democratic candidates. “Therefore, we are committed to voting for new leadership in both our Caucus meeting and on the House Floor.”

Pelosi has activated an aggressive campaign for the job involving House colleagues, prominent outside Democrats and party-aligned interest groups. Her office distributed endorsements Monday from nine House Democrats who are military veterans and UnidosUS, a Hispanic civil rights organization.

Known as a precise vote counter with a keen sense of her caucus’ leanings, Pelosi is aided by the lack of a declared opponent and many weeks during which she can dangle choice committee assignments, rules changes and other goodies to help attract support.

“Leader Pelosi remains confident in her support among Members and Members-elect,” spokesman Drew Hammill said in a written statement. He said 94 percent of House Democrats declined to sign the letter, though Pelosi opponents said they expect others who didn’t sign to vote against her.

Though the mavericks’ numbers represent a handful of the 232 House Democrats elected, plus five races still undecided, they could still garner enough opposition to thwart her.

Pelosi seems certain to have enough support to become her party’s nominee for speaker when House Democrats vote by secret ballot on Nov. 28. She will need only a majority of Democrats in that contest.

But when the full House elects its new leaders Jan. 3, the speaker will need a majority 218 votes, assuming that no one votes “present” or misses the vote and Republicans oppose her en masse, as seems likely. At 232 seats, Pelosi could afford to lose just 14 Democrats and still become speaker.

The rebels’ letter to their Democratic colleagues praises Pelosi, 78, as “a historic figure” who helped win major victories. Pelosi was speaker from 2007 through 2010 when Democrats held the majority and has been the party’s leader since 2003.

“We also recognize that in this recent election, Democrats ran and won on a message of change,” they wrote. “Our majority came on the backs of candidates who said that they would support new leadership because voters in hard-won districts, and across the country, want to see real change in Washington.”

Pelosi’s critics say the party’s long-serving top leaders must make room for younger members. They say years of Republican ads portraying her as an out-of-touch liberal have made it hard for moderate Democrats to win in swing districts.

Pelosi allies counter that the party just won House control with their biggest gain of seats since the 1974 post-Watergate election. Many bristle at dumping her at a time when President Donald Trump and the #MeToo movement have helped attract female candidates and voters to the party.

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland has been No. 2 House Democrat since 2003 and South Carolina’s Jim Clyburn has been No. 3 since 2007. Both are in their late 70s and are running, unopposed so far, for those posts again.

Of the letter’s signees, five are incoming House freshmen or hope to be. Two of them — Anthony Brindisi of New York and Ben McAdams of Utah — are in races in which The Associated Press has yet to call a winner.

Pelosi critics assert there are more Democrats who’ve not signed the letter who are prepared to vote against Pelosi. That includes Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio, who’s said she’s considering running for speaker.

Trump has tweeted his respect for Pelosi and offered to round up GOP votes to help elect her speaker. Pelosi’s office has said she will win with Democratic votes, and it seems a stretch to expect Republicans to help elect her speaker — a vote that could open them up to primary challenges in 2020.

Others signing were incumbents Jim Cooper of Tennessee; Bill Foster of Illinois; Brian Higgins of New York; Stephen Lynch and Seth Moulton of Massachusetts; Ed Perlmutter of Colorado; Tim Ryan of Ohio; Kurt Schrader of Oregon and Filemon Vela of Texas. Incoming freshmen were Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Max Rose from New York and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Suspect dead, 4 critical after hospital shooting

Published

on

Suspect dead 4 critical after hospital shootinga

CHICAGO (AP) — The Latest on a shooting at a Chicago hospital (all times local):

5 p.m.

Police say the suspected gunman is dead and four people are in critical condition following a shooting at a Chicago hospital.

Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi says a police officer and at least one hospital employee are among those hospitalized in critical condition following the Monday afternoon shooting at Mercy Hospital.

Guglielmi says the gunman was killed, but it’s unclear if he took his own life or was killed by police.

The department issued a statement earlier on Twitter saying there were “reports of multiple victims” after shots were fired near the hospital on the city’s South Side. Police are asking people to avoid the area.

A spokesman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel says the mayor and Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson are monitoring the situation.

___

4:15 p.m.

Chicago police say an officer has been shot during an active-shooting incident at a hospital on the city’s South Side.

Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi says the officer is in critical condition. He says one “possible offender” has also been shot, and that officers are now searching the hospital.

The department issued a statement on Twitter saying there were “reports of multiple victims” after shots were fired Monday afternoon near Mercy Hospital. Police are asking people to avoid the area. No other details were immediately released.

A message left for hospital officials wasn’t immediately returned.

Television footage shows several people, including some wearing white coats, walking through a parking lot with their arms up.

___

4 p.m.

Chicago police say officers are searching a hospital after a reported shooting and that one “possible offender” has been shot.

The department issued a statement on Twitter saying there are “reports of multiple victims” after shots were fired Monday afternoon near Mercy Hospital on the city’s South Side.

Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi says officers are searching the hospital. He says at least one “possible offender is shot,” but no details were immediately released. Police are asking people to avoid the area.

A message left for hospital officials wasn’t immediately returned.

Television footage shows several people, including some wearing white coats, walking through a parking lot with their arms up.

___

3:50 p.m.

Chicago police say they are responding to a shooting near a Chicago hospital with “reports of multiple victims.”

A department spokesman issued a statement on Twitter saying officers are responding after shots were fired near Mercy Hospital on the city’s South Side. The department says there are “reports of multiple victims.”

The police department says it didn’t immediately have more details. A message left for hospital officials wasn’t immediately returned.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Legislators tell Allen West: Next version of First Step Act will cut loopholes

Published

on

Legislators tell Allen West Next version of First Step Act will cut loopholes

Last week, a handful of conservatives, including Lt. Col. Allen West and Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz, went after the bipartisan First Step Act, a criminal justice reform bill that has the backing of the President and many conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Our complaint: why would the GOP support a bill that releases violent criminals and illegal immigrants?

According to legislative proponents of the bill, protections and benefits for both of these groups of felons have been eliminated in the next version of the bill that will reach the Senate floor. They reached out to West over the weekend to let them know they heard the concerns and are addressing them.

First Step Act: Response and Reassurances

https://i0.wp.com/theoldschoolpatriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/prison-553836_640.jpg?w=200&ssl=1The First Step Act is supported by many conservatives and law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National District Attorneys Association. There are other proposals offered by those on the far left under the same banner of “criminal justice reform” that would release people from prison without regard to the danger they pose, including illegal immigrants and serious violent offenders. We must remember that there are some folks who are, well, as the ol’ folks would say, “just bad.” Additionally, some left-wing professors even propose abolishing all prisons partly based on their notion that the system is racist in nature. Hmm, I tend to believe that skin color or race has nothing to do with a person deciding to break the law. I just do not want us to go down the path of having criminals believe that there are no consequences, ramifications, for their actions and behaviors.

The legislators echoed our concerns and said the version that is currently available doesn’t reflect the changes that cut the loopholes. They say it will be impossible for these two groups – serious violent offenders and criminal illegal immigrants – to get the benefits of the bill. Many felons will be released early. Future felons will be given lighter sentences. That makes sense for many, but by no means should anyone in either of the two most dangerous groups receive sentence reductions, according to the letter to West.

My Take

Call me cynical, but lately I’ve changed my general rules regarding promises of politicians. It used to echo President Reagan’s stance on nuclear disarmament: “Trust but verify.” I now have to go with a more adversarial stance on political promises: “Show me proof, then we’ll talk.”

When the legislation is made available to the public, many will take a close look at it. I’ll personally be checking to see if there are any loopholes that would put violent offenders or criminal illegal immigrants back on the street sooner. If so, it’s a no-go for me.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report